I have received your letter of the 5th and the
article.[2]
Many thanks. The alterations probably involved a great
deal of work and must have caused even more annoyance,
because condensing such a subject must be extremely
uninteresting work. It is all the more valuable to us that you
undertook to do it. Please excuse us for not sending you
the articles: our “secretary” is, unfortunately, burdened
with serious family duties, and therefore the copying
proceeds very slowly. I enclose an article, “New Friends of
the Russian Proletariat”, which we want to publish in
No. 1 as a
feature.[3] Please let us know your opinion (you
can pencil it on the article) and then be kind enough to
send it onto G. V.

As regards the Parisians, we decided on the very tactics
you advised: on the one hand, “not to arm”, and on the
other, “to abstain”. Of course, they are dissatisfied with
our abstention and we were recently obliged (of necessity)
to give such a rebuff to their expression of dissatisfaction
that we feared a “cooling-off” (feared is not quite the right
word, because we decided to give this rebuff even if it
should inevitably lead to a rupture). Yesterday, we received
a reply from the “secretary” of the group they have formed
in
Paris[4]; judging by the reply, our rebuff has had no
harmful consequences, and “all is well”. Let’s hope that
this will continue to be so in the future. It is quite true
that later on we shall probably have to think of the “rules”
and the other pleasant and interesting things you mention;
but it was a master-stroke on your part to have set
approximately six months for this. It would be premature so
long as the undertaking is not “in full working order”;
we are completely in agreement with you in this respect.

But I cannot agree with you about beginning to appear
here openly. I cannot as yet think that “legality has
already been lost”. To my mind, it has not yet been lost,
and this “yet” may last another few months, during which
time much will be clarified. (My brother is already in
Russia, and so far all is well. The
traveller[5] is also wandering
successfully, so far.) And even if there were a complete
and final loss of legality, there might be weighty
considerations against coming out openly (for example,
considerations about journeys home). Therefore, until the first
issues have appeared, and until all of us (including Alexei
and my brother) get together, I shall, in any case, remain
in hiding. If the undertaking is destined to be a success,
this decision may soon change, but my earlier “optimism”
about this condition has been thoroughly shaken by “the
humdrum of
life”.[6]

As regards the journal, it will soon be clear, I suppose,
whether we shall organise it here or seek refuge in other
countries. As soon as this is cleared up, I shall let you know.

I find it very inconvenient to write to America, for after
all I know no one there, and no one there knows me, and
all the same it will be necessary to use you as an
intermediary. Would it not, therefore, be better for you to write
direct, and to send the statement, informing them that it
comes from a Russian group, stating your attitude to this
group and saying that a pamphlet, May Day
Demonstrations in Kharkov, is now being set at the same printing press,
and that when it is finished the paper will be set; that the
statement says nothing about a journal (or a miscellany)
for technical reasons of secrecy, but that for No. 1 there
are being written (or are ready) such-and-such articles by
G. V., yourself and Kautsky (
Erinnerungen[1]
,
an
interesting piece which V. I. is already translating), and others.
It seems to me that all the aims you mention will be attained
much better and much more directly by your letter,
while your dispatch of the statement to America no longer
entails (I think) any undesirable publicity, particularly
the sending of one copy for the secretary of the society there
to read out at its
meeting.[7]

Notes

[3]
L. Martov’s article, “New Friends of the Russian Proletariat”,
appeared in No. 1 of Iskra in December 1900.

[4]A reference to the Borba group (D. B. Ryazanov, Y. M. Steklov
and E. L. Gurevich), which emerged in Paris in the summer of
1900 and was formed into a separate group in 1901, following
the “unity” conference. The group’s publications distorted
Marxist theory, rejected Iskra’s revolutionary tactics and took a
hostile attitude to Lenin’s organisational principles of party
building. In view of these departures from Social-Democratic
views and tactics, its splitting activities and lack of contact with
Social-Democratic organisations in Russia, the group was not
allowed to attend the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. and was
dissolved by its decision.

[6]During preparations for the publication of Iskra, differences
on the place of publication arose between Lenin and A. N.
Potresov, on the one hand, and G. V. Plekhanov and P. B. Axelrod,
on the other. The latter opposed Iskra’s publication in Germany
and wanted to have it issued in Switzerland, under their immediate
direction. Lenin and Potresov opposed this. Following the
conference in Corsier (near Geneva) in August 1900 with members of
the Emancipation of Labour group, Lenin and Potresov decided
that in the interest of the cause Iskra and Zarya =
should be published
in Germany. The essence of these differences of principle was
described by Lenin in “How the ‘Spark’ Was Nearly Extinguished ”
(see present edition, Vol. 4, pp. 333–49). Lenin and Potresov won
out and the publication of Iskra was started in Germany, initially
in Leipzig and then in Munich. Zarya was published legally in
Stuttgart.